REVIEW ARTICLEpublished: 09 September 2013doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00607

Gaming science: the “Gamification” of scientific thinkingBradley J. Morris1*, Steve Croker2, Corinne Zimmerman2, Devin Gill 2 and Connie Romig1

1 Department of Lifespan Development and Educational Science, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA2 Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA

Edited by:

Mary Katsikitis, University of theSunshine Coast, Australia

Reviewed by:

Ruth Ford, Griffith University,AustraliaFlorin Oprescu, University of theSunshine Coast, AustraliaRachael Sharman, University of theSunshine Coast, Australia

*Correspondence:

Bradley J. Morris, Department ofLifespan Development andEducational Science, Kent StateUniversity, 405 White Hall, Kent,OH 44242, USAe-mail: bmorri20@kent.edu

Science is critically important for advancing economics, health, and social well-being in thetwenty-first century. A scientifically literate workforce is one that is well-suited to meet thechallenges of an information economy. However, scientific thinking skills do not routinelydevelop and must be scaffolded via educational and cultural tools. In this paper we outlinea rationale for why we believe that video games have the potential to be exploited for gainin science education. The premise we entertain is that several classes of video gamescan be viewed as a type of cultural tool that is capable of supporting three key elementsof scientific literacy: content knowledge, process skills, and understanding the nature ofscience. We argue that there are three classes of mechanisms through which video gamescan support scientific thinking. First, there are a number of motivational scaffolds, such asfeedback, rewards, and flow states that engage students relative to traditional culturallearning tools. Second, there are a number of cognitive scaffolds, such as simulations andembedded reasoning skills that compensate for the limitations of the individual cognitivesystem. Third, fully developed scientific thinking requires metacognition, and video gamesprovide metacognitive scaffolding in the form of constrained learning and identity adoption.We conclude by outlining a series of recommendations for integrating games and gameelements in science education and provide suggestions for evaluating their effectiveness.

Keywords: scientific reasoning, science education, cognitive development, motivation, metacognition, technology

in education, video games

INTRODUCTIONSCIENCE EDUCATION AND ITS ROLE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURYECONOMYScientific literacy describes the skills that are required by citizensin a scientifically advanced democracy. We propose that students,citizens, and politicians need to understand how to investigate,evaluate, and comprehend science content (e.g., climate change,evolution, vaccinations), processes (e.g., how to test hypothe-ses effectively), and products (e.g., evaluating data about themost effective cancer treatments), as well as possess positive atti-tudes toward science (e.g., the usefulness of data when evaluatingpolicy). The authors of a National Research Council (NationalResearch Council, 2010) report argued that science is the disci-pline that should convey those skills required for a twenty-firstcentury workforce, such as non-routine problem solving, adapt-ability, complex communication/social skills, self-management,and systems thinking. Creating a scientifically literate populationrequires strong science education. In this paper outline a ratio-nale for why we believe that video games have the potential to beexploited for gain in science education.

Science operates and develops at multiple spatiotemporalscales; it is simultaneously an individual and social activitythat uses and creates cultural tools. We use the phrase cul-tural tools following Vygotsky (1986) to describe tools such aslanguage, cognition, and information seeking strategies that aug-ment human cognition and are used in both formal (e.g., class-room instruction) and informal education (e.g., parent childinteractions; Rogoff, 1990). Cultural tools can be conceptual

(e.g., instruction in critical thinking) or concrete (e.g., note-books, scientific instruments). As developmental psychologists,we are interested in the factors that influence the origins andgrowth of scientific thinking across the lifespan, from the childin a science classroom to the scientifically literate adult or prac-ticing scientist. As is the case with psychological studies of thebasic cognitive mechanisms involved in reading and mathemat-ical thinking, basic research on scientific thinking can and shouldinform educational practice.

GAMES AS CULTURAL TOOLS IN SCIENCE EDUCATIONThe key to creating a scientifically literate workforce is to makechanges to science education (National Research Council, 2010).We suggest that one way to engineer modern science educationto be able to fill the needs of a twenty-first century citizenryand workforce is to game the education system by incorporatingthe lessons that we have learned about the effectiveness of videogames to produce behavioral and cognitive change (McGonigal,2011). Specifically, we suggest that science education can beimproved by incorporating key features of games that influencemotivation, cognition, and metacognition. Games may serve asa useful cultural tool through which instruction can effectivelymake use of existing capacities (Greenfield, 1994). Rather thanthinking of video games as the next educational panacea, we needto consider how games might promote effective science educationby analyzing game elements and their relation to developmen-tal mechanisms. Promoting optimal health is a useful analogy:optimal health is the result of many contributing factors, rather

www.frontiersin.org September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 1

Morris et al. Gaming science

than a single, causal factor. For example, eating healthy foods,making healthy choices (e.g., not smoking cigarettes), effectivelymanaging stress, having a supportive social network, and regularexercise all contribute to good health. Although each contributes,none on their own guarantees optimal health in the absence ofthe others. There is no “magic bullet” related to optimal healthand there is no “magic bullet” in education. As in health, knowl-edge of the constituent components that contribute to effectiveeducation allows us to create contexts in which student learningis more likely. One of the components that we feel has the poten-tial to contribute to modern education is the “gamification” ofparticular elements of education.

There is much evidence for the effects that video games—specifically action games—can have in several general cognitivedomains (Bavelier et al., 2012). For example, such games havebeen demonstrated to enhance the spatial resolution of vision(Green and Bavelier, 2007), visual short-term memory (Bootet al., 2008), spatial cognition (Feng et al., 2007), probabilis-tic inference (Green et al., 2010), and reaction time (Dye et al.,2009). Although there have been suggestions that video gamescan improve science education, to date, the evidence has beenmixed.

THE GAMIFICATION OF SCIENCE EDUCATIONMcGonigal (2011) argues persuasively that it is time for us toreconsider the negative connotations that we associate with videogames—that they are “escapist” or “time wasters.” McGonigalconcisely defines a game with a quote from Bernard Suits (1978):“Playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unneces-sary obstacles” (p. 41). The key features are goals, rules, a feedbacksystem, and voluntary participation. When the National ResearchCouncil (2011) examined the educational potential of videogames, their definition included these ideas and an acknowledge-ment that games could include elements of fun and enjoyment, aswell as strategies for controlling the game environment.

Gamification is a term used to describe using game elementsin other environments to enhance user experience (Kapp, 2012).In this paper, our goal is to analyze the idea of the gamificationof science education, by drawing on research results from cog-nitive and developmental psychology, and educational researchto provide guidance for using existing games and for devel-oping new games to facilitate scientific thinking skills acrossthe science curriculum. A small number of schools in theUS (e.g., the Quest2Learn schools in New York and Chicago)have begun to experiment with gamification across the cur-riculum, though as of yet, there are no data to evaluate itsefficacy.

We assert that the development and practice of scientific think-ing skills takes place in the presence of cultural tools. These toolsare traditionally taken to include language, artifacts (e.g., books),and institutions (e.g., public schools; Rogoff, 1990; Lemke, 2001).However, video games and computer simulations are also exam-ples of cultural tools that could be exploited by educators. Ratherthan limit these tools to create positive user experiences, theirmotivational and learning potential can be repurposed to enhancescience education. Stated differently, we can ask: what happenswhen we conceptualize video games as a tool that can be used

in our educational arsenal, along with paper, pencils, books, andcomputers?

Video games are not just a vehicle for conveying content.McClarty et al. (2012) note that games are inherently ongoingassessments. A player’s abilities or knowledge of the game are con-stantly assessed; if the player does not perform well-enough in thegame, she fails. This is because games are essentially a demon-stration of a player’s skills. This form of assessment is, of course,different from traditional educational assessments. Games pro-vide an authentic context in which players can demonstrate whatthey have learned, as opposed to standardized tests.

THE PLAN FOR OUR ESSAYIn this article, we begin with a brief review of how cognitivedevelopmental researchers define and study scientific thinking.Longer reviews of this literature are available elsewhere (e.g.,Zimmerman, 2000, 2007). Thus, our goal is to provide sufficientbackground to consider claims that video games may facilitatescientific thinking (e.g., Barab and Dede, 2007; Steinkuehler andDuncan, 2008). Next, we highlight the elements of science edu-cation that could be supported in gaming environments. Broadly,we consider the content, process, and nature of science. We thenturn our attention to the ways in which video games may be usedas educational tools. Video games are designed to keep playersengaged. Games promote behavioral persistence, extended time-on-task, leveling up, and mastery approaches. They also maysuppress fear of failure. Game play engagement is consistent withvarious theories of motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000), positivepsychology (e.g., flow; Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi,1975; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), and with educational research andtheory, such as the benefits of self-directed, collaborative, and par-ticipatory learning (e.g., O’Loughlin, 1992; Gauvain, 2001). Wefocus on three types of scaffolds: (a) motivational scaffolds, suchas feedback, rewards, and flow states that engage students relativeto traditional cultural learning tools; (b) cognitive scaffolds thatcompensate for the limitations of the individual cognitive system,such as cognitive simulations and embedded reasoning skills; and(c) metacognitive scaffolding in the form of constrained learningand identity adoption.

In the final section, we review how these scaffolds are instan-tiated in gaming contexts created for entertainment and thosecreated for instruction. Finally, we review the current evidencefor games in science education and outline recommendations forhow to use games and gaming elements to improve science edu-cation, and how to measure the effectiveness of gamified scienceinstruction.

WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC THINKING?Scientific thinking emerges as a product of internal (e.g., moti-vational, cognitive, and metacognitive components) and contex-tual factors (e.g., education) and functions as a specific type ofinformation seeking (Kuhn, 2011; Morris et al., 2012). Scientificthinking encompasses the set of reasoning and problem-solvingskills involved in generating, testing, and revising hypotheses ortheories. The ability to reflect metacognitively on the process ofknowledge acquisition and change is a hallmark of fully devel-oped scientific thinking (Kuhn, 2005). As is the case with other

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 2

Morris et al. Gaming science

academic skills such as reading and mathematical thinking, sci-entific thinking is highly educationally mediated. Unlike otherbasic cognitive skills (e.g., attention, perception, memory), scien-tific thinking does not “routinely develop,” (Kuhn and Franklin,2006, p. 974); that is, scientific thinking does not emerge inde-pendently (i.e., ontogenetically) of science education and thecultural tools of science (e.g., mathematical tools for data anal-ysis). Furthermore, even among scientifically educated children,adolescents, and adults, interpretation of evidence is often subjectto many biases, such as the influence of prior beliefs (Kuhn andFranklin, 2006; Zimmerman and Croker, 2013).

At the individual level of analysis, scientific thinking involvesthe coordination of various cognitive and metacognitive skills. Wecan situate the basic cognitive skills within the framework pro-posed by Klahr and Dunbar (1988). The Scientific Discovery asDual Search model (SDDS) involves coordinated search throughproblem spaces (i.e., a space of hypotheses and a space of exper-iments). Kuhn’s (2005) work on scientific thinking stresses theimportance of metacognitive and metastrategic skills as part offully developed scientific thinking. In particular, she focuses onthe ability to differentiate evidence and theory as distinct episte-mological categories. That is, we must be able to reflect, metacog-nitively, on the difference between information that representsevidence from information that represents theory (or explana-tion for a pattern of evidence) without conflating them. A morecomprehensive account situates the individual investigation, evi-dence evaluation, and inference skills that constitute scientificthinking within a learning environment that includes direct andscaffolded instruction, and in the support of scientific activitythrough the use of cultural tools (e.g., literacy, numeracy, tech-nology; Morris et al., 2012). The history of science illustrates howhighly dependent the scientific endeavor is on cultural tools andinstruments (e.g., microscopes, telescopes, marine chronometers,the printing press, computers). Although educators can use thesetools to teach science, they are not synonymous with science edu-cation. Cultural tools can be used in the absence of education(e.g., by practising scientists), and many of the tools that sup-port scientific activity are not specific to science (e.g., literacy,numeracy). Because scientific reasoning does not spontaneouslydevelop, achieving short- and long-term goals is dependent onbeing motivated to learn about science. Accordingly, motiva-tion is the critical link across both short- and long-term timescales as students modify their basic cognitive skills, engage inmetacognitive reflection, and acquire cultural tools. Effective sci-ence education requires the integration of these three factors.Games provide a potentially valuable tool because they provideopportunities for cognitive and metacognitive engagement andare typically highly motivating (Deater-Deckard et al., 2013).

WHAT ELEMENTS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION CAN BESUPPORTED BY VIDEO GAMES?Psychologists and educators interested in how people learn sci-ence make a distinction between conceptual knowledge and scienceprocess skills. This distinction is mirrored in the way science istaught and reflected in the National Research Council’s (2012)framework for science education, which lays out a series ofstandards for K-12 science education. The science education

standards are discussed within a framework with three broaddimensions: (a) scientific and engineering practices, (b) crosscut-ting concepts, and (c) core ideas. The scientific and engineeringpractices dimension includes asking questions, defining prob-lems, developing and using models, carrying out investigations,interpreting evidence, constructing explanations, and designingsolutions. The crosscutting concepts dimension includes under-standing patterns, cause and effect, and systems and systemmodels. The core ideas dimension includes items related to thephysical sciences (e.g., matter, energy), life sciences (e.g., ecosys-tems, evolution), Earth and space sciences (e.g., Earth’s systems,Earth and human activity), and applications of science (e.g., linksamong engineering, technology, science, and society). There isthus a distinction between skills and practices and content knowl-edge. We also focus on a third category that subsumes severalideas, largely defined as “the nature of science.” For example,some of the science learning goals that have been identified assupported in informal learning environments (National ResearchCouncil, 2009) include understanding that science is a “way ofknowing.” Additionally, the ideas of scientific discourse, and self-identification as someone who knows about and uses scienceare seen as important components of understanding the broaderinstitute of science situated within culture (National ResearchCouncil, 2009).

At the heart of the National Research Council’s (2012) frame-work for science education is a conceptualization of studentsas scientifically literate citizens, as consumers of scientific infor-mation, and (for some students) the future producers of suchinformation. To this end, the NRC argues that we move awayfrom an emphasis on learning a broad array of facts and towardgiving students authentic experiences with doing science. TheNRC focus on a small set of disciplinary core ideas in engineer-ing and physical life and earth sciences, and propose that theseideas should be taught and learned within contexts of scientificand engineering practice. Importantly, an appreciation of scien-tific and engineering practices should involve an understandingof how these practices as are embedded within social and culturalcontexts. That is, students must recognize and appreciate that allof the concepts and procedures that we call “science” are the prod-uct of collaborative human activity: our collective, ongoing, andcumulative knowledge is produced by many scientists, many ofwhom work in teams, building on previous knowledge, and usingcultural tools. Although some scientific research is shaped by thegoals of the individuals conducting the research, much research,as well as scientists’ personal goals, is driven by societal needs.

Much has been written on the rationale for including videogames in educational contexts in general, and in science educationin particular (e.g., Annetta, 2008; Barab et al., 2009; Mayo, 2009;National Research Council, 2011). We agree that video games canbe used to scaffold internal factors, such as motivation, cognitiveskills, and metacognitive skills, while also providing constrainedand directed use of cultural tools, such as recording prior behav-iors and outcomes, and providing task-relevant knowledge. Gee(2008a) argues that good video games mirror a formal descriptionof how scientists approach problems: they construct a hypoth-esis, design an experiment to test the hypothesis, evaluate theresults, and refine the hypothesis accordingly. This description

www.frontiersin.org September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 3

Morris et al. Gaming science

of scientific behavior bears a close correspondence to Klahr’s(1996, 2000; Klahr and Dunbar, 1988; Dunbar and Klahr, 1989)conceptualization of science as a search through problem spaces.

There are three different ways in which video games maysupport the development of scientific thinking and science edu-cation. First, there are some games, often referred to as seriouseducational games (Annetta, 2008), in which scientific domainknowledge is taught by using the gaming context to promoteinquiry-based learning. For example, Supercharged! (Squire et al.,2004) is a game designed to teach principles of electromagnetism.Cheng and Annetta (2012) used a video game to give studentsinstruction on the effects of methamphetamine on the brain,and Immune Attack teaches immunology concepts. These gamesincorporate core disciplinary ideas relating to the third dimension(i.e., core ideas) of the Framework for Science Education (NationalResearch Council, 2012). Learning the wide range of discipline-specific content may be difficult to adapt to game play, giventhe vast number of possible science concepts that can be taught.Prensky (2011) notes that “building a game for every topic isprobably not necessary” (p. 268). However, big picture “crosscut-ting” concepts such as systems, patterns, and causality are perfectfor games and simulation.

Second, there are games in which instruction in scientific pro-cess skills is embedded. For example, River City is a multi-uservirtual environment in which small teams of students conduct sci-entific investigations into an epidemic affecting a historical town(Galas and Ketelhut, 2006; Nelson et al., 2007). Mad City Mysteryis a game designed to teach students inquiry and argumenta-tion skills as they investigate a mysterious death (Squire and Jan,2007). These games relate to the scientific practices in the firstdimension of the National Research Council (2012) Framework.

Third, there are games that may promote the development ofskills, attitudes, and values that are useful for scientific think-ing or practice, but without any explicit instruction in scientificknowledge or skills. Some of these games may embed scientificpractices from the first dimension of the framework, or theymay support crosscutting concepts from the second dimensionof the framework (National Research Council, 2012). They mayalso support concepts related to science as a multi-scale, social,collaborative endeavor. For example, situating cognition in a con-textualized virtual environment, providing collaborative game-play structures, and role-playing characters are elements found inmany successful commercial games that could be exploited to sit-uate gamers in the context of scientific investigation. Additionally,there are games that may not bear any obvious relationship toany of the items in the Framework, but may still promote skillsuseful for components of science (e.g., cognitive). For example,games that exercise spatial cognition, whether puzzle games (e.g.,Tetris) or action games (e.g., Medal of Honor), may have an effecton visualization skills used in thinking about scientific conceptsand processes (Feng et al., 2007; Newcombe, 2010; Newcombeand Stieff, 2012; Uttal et al., 2013). Games may also improveworking memory capacity, an important element in problemsolving (Hawes et al., 2013). Adachi and Willoughby (2013)report that playing strategic (as opposed to action) video gamespredicts higher self-reported problem solving skills. Scientific lit-eracy skills may also be fostered in non-academic game contexts.

For example, evidence of scientific discourse, model-based rea-soning, and understanding of theory and evidence has been foundin an analysis of World of Warcraft discussion board postings(Steinkuehler and Chmiel, 2006).

HOW DO (COULD) GAMES FACILITATE SCIENTIFICTHINKING?According to a report by the Federation of American Scientists(2006), many of the features used in high-quality learning envi-ronments are also found in video games. Both well-structuredclassroom lessons and video games have (a) clear learning goals,(b) opportunities for practice and reinforcing expertise, (c) mon-itoring of progress, and (d) adaptation to the level of mastery ofthe learner. As in good educational experiences, video games canencourage inquiry, engage learners so that they are motivated tospend time on the task and to develop expertise, and provide acontextual bridge between the concepts learned and their appli-cations. Video games can also scaffold the learner’s development,help the learner to adapt to different levels of knowledge andmotivation, and provide “infinite” patience for learners who needto attempt tasks multiple times before developing competence.

Science is concerned with causal mechanisms and explanation(Koslowski, 1996). To support our assertion that video games area cultural tool that can be used to promote and encourage scien-tific thinking, it is necessary to outline what sort of causal powersthey have to bring about these (desired) effects. In this section, wefocus on ways that video games may be effective in supporting sci-entific thinking with respect to scaffolds in three broad domains:(a) motivation, (b) cognition, and (c) metacognition.

MOTIVATIONAL SCAFFOLDSOne of the key features of video games that educators would loveto exploit is their ability to motivate. Games seem to motivatepeople in ways that other activities often do not. For example, stu-dents often continue playing video games despite encounteringfrequent obstacles, yet these same students may not demon-strate the same level of persistence given setbacks in schoolwork.Motivation refers to the level of engagement related to achievinga goal and includes factors such as persistence in the face of set-backs (e.g., Henderlong and Lepper, 2002; Dweck, 2006). In orderto gamify science education, it is helpful to determine why gamesare highly motivating.

CuriosityCuriosity is the “threshold of desired uncertainty in the envi-ronment that leads to exploratory behavior” (Jirout and Klahr,2012, p. 125). This definition suggests that an important ele-ment of motivation is the desire to bridge a gap in informationbetween what is known and what is unknown, but which is alsoachievable. Curiosity is critically important in scientific thinkingas it drives children’s exploratory behavior when they are inter-ested and when the task or phenomenon is not too complex(Loewenstein, 1994). There is a “sweet spot” when it comes tocuriosity—an optimal level—that prompts behavior.

In games and in education, the “skill gap” or “knowledge gap”is a moving target. That is, the gap is dynamic because knowledgeand experience change in real time. Maintaining an optimal skill

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 4

Morris et al. Gaming science

gap is difficult in educational settings because it requires moni-toring and modifying the information gap, which changes overtime and differs across individuals (Singer et al., 2000). In con-trast, game designers have built in the mechanism for maintainingthe skill gap: leveling. Most games begin with simpler levels andbecome more complex with play. Players maintain the skill gap bymoving through the game at their own pace. Additionally, play-ers can re-play levels to practice skills before moving on to moredifficult levels. Self-pacing and monitoring allow the player tomonitor and modify their own skill gap.

Finally, games provide curiosity-promoting contexts in thatthey have optimal levels of uncertainty. One context is the worldin which the player must discover the rules for action. Portal is agame in which players have to solve a series of puzzles by creatingportals through which the character and objects teleport. Othergames promote curiosity by immersing players in a virtual world.Bioshock is an underwater world that the player must navigate inorder to survive and may prompt curiosity about the world itselfand the capacities/limitations of the character being played.

FeedbackFeedback is an internal or external evaluation of current per-formance relative to a goal that allows a student to optimizeperformance (Powers, 1973). Feedback is clearly important inlearning situations. Educational assessment is a type of feedback,and in the case of formative assessment, the idea is to provideexplicit, concrete information to meet a specified criterion (e.g.,demonstrating knowledge of multiplication facts).

Feedback is more effective when it provides sufficient and spe-cific information for goal achievement and is presented relativelyclose in time to the event being evaluated (Graesser and Person,1994; Prensky, 2001). Verbal or written feedback employed as animmediate and direct response to student academic performancehas been demonstrated to be a powerful classroom intervention(Wilbert et al., 2010). Feedback can reference individual learningprogress, can make social comparisons, or can refer to task criteria(Wilbert et al., 2010). Feedback occurs at varying grain-sizes fromsimple (e.g., information about correct/incorrect performance) tocomplex (e.g., extensive suggestions for revising a paper), can bepositive or negative (e.g., rewards, punishments; Brophy, 1981),and may provide information about causal explanatory links (e.g.,attributions for success or failure; Weiner, 1995).

Like experienced tutors, games provide immediate feedback atmultiple grain sizes (Mayo, 2009). For example, in Angry Birds,players immediately see the impact of different birds on spe-cific materials (e.g., wood, glass) and situations (e.g., no gravity)as well as seeing their progress in completing a level, whichis related to overall difficulty. Compared to those given direct,classroom-based instruction in which students were given infre-quent, general feedback (e.g., letter grades), high school studentslearned more about computer science concepts when these con-cepts were presented in a game system that provided immediate,specific feedback on performance (Papastergiou, 2009). The mosteffective feedback focuses on the task at hand rather than charac-teristics or traits, on that which is within the recipient’s control,and requires more work from the recipient than from the giver(Powers, 1973).

PraisePraise is a positive evaluation of performance (Henderlong andLepper, 2002). Praise differs from feedback in that it generatesself-attention by comparing performance to a standard (thusincreasing intrinsic motivation; Baumeister et al., 1990). Praisealso differs from rewards in that rewards are consequences thatincrease the frequency of a behavior (Deci et al., 1999). Praise ismost effective when it is perceived as informational (rather thancontrolling) and when focused on processes (e.g., effort) ratherthan on personal traits (e.g., ability; Corpus et al., 2006). Praiseinfluences motivation orientations by creating expectations aboutthe extent to which performance is changeable (e.g., whether onehas control over outcomes; Cimpian, 2010). More specifically,praise directed toward effort (e.g., you worked hard) suggests thatone’s effort caused success/failure and that this is a malleable, con-trollable factor. Conversely, praise directed toward traits (e.g., youare smart) suggests that success/failure was caused by the posses-sion of a stable trait that is not controllable or malleable (Kaminsand Dweck, 1999; Cimpian et al., 2007; Zentall and Morris, 2010).

Given what we know about the conditions under which praisecan have the most positive effects on learning, video games canbe designed to incorporate the optimal type and frequency ofpraise, thereby increasing motivation and persistence. By focusingpraise on effort, video games often signal the need for additionaleffort (i.e., persistence). Dance Dance Revolution provides ver-bal praise to players during gameplay (Perfect!) and Rock Bandpraises (cheers) and criticizes (boos) players during gameplay.Multiplayer games (e.g., Halo) allow the possibility of praise bothfrom the game itself and from other gamers.

Motivation orientationsChildren’s explanations for the causes of success and failuredirectly influence their motivation. Children with a mastery ori-entation believe that effort is controllable and related to successand have task mastery as their goal (Kamins and Dweck, 1999;Cimpian et al., 2007). In contrast, children with helpless ori-entations believe that non-controllable factors like traits (e.g.,intelligence) are related to success and have performance goals(e.g., achieving external markers of validation such as awards;Kamins and Dweck, 1999). Praise for effort is linked to promotingmastery orientations, while praise for traits is linked to promot-ing helpless orientations (Kamins and Dweck, 1999; Cimpianet al., 2007; Zentall and Morris, 2010). Games often implicitly andexplicitly promote mastery orientations (Klimmt and Hartmann,2006). For example, the immediate feedback between player andoutcome highlights the relation between effort and competence, acritical factor in increasing intrinsic motivation (Przybylski et al.,2010). Games provide a context in which players perceive highlevels of control and competence related to their own actions(Ryan et al., 2006). First- and second-grade children increasedthe amount time-on-task for math and reading comprehensionactivities, compared to traditional materials, when these activi-ties were presented in a game format (Rosas et al., 2003). Gamessometimes provide explicit praise for effort that promotes mas-tery orientations. For example, when completing a level on Cutthe Rope, players are given praise (e.g., Excellent) that is directedtoward outcome rather than player characteristics.

www.frontiersin.org September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 5

Morris et al. Gaming science

Fun failureIn many contexts, failure and error provoke high levels of anxi-ety, which typically reduces motivation (Cimpian, 2010; Zentalland Morris, 2012). Anxiety is related to the consequences offailure, specifically, failure (or error) provokes anxiety in thosewith helpless orientations because it is a negative external con-sequence (Cimpian, 2010). Because error is threatening to one’sself-image, praise directed to traits appears to increase threat vig-ilance, defined as increased attention to threatening informationsuch as errors (Vuilleumier, 2005). Young children who receivedtrait-based praise produced more visual fixations to errors thanchildren who received effort-based praise (Zentall and Morris,2012). Teachers experience anxiety related to science instruction(Cox and Carpenter, 1989) and students who experience anx-iety related to science instruction often avoid science courses(Tilgner, 1990) and select non-science majors (Udo et al., 2004).In a related subject, mathematics, female teacher anxiety is relatedto entrenching gender stereotypes about mathematical abilitiesand increasing math-related anxiety in the girls in their classes(Beilock et al., 2010).

There is some evidence that error and failure may beviewed differently within gaming contexts (McGonigal, 2011).Specifically, errors in gaming contexts may not provoke anxietyand threat vigilance in the same way that it does in academiccontexts. Because games often provide frequent impasses, the netimpact of a single impasse is likely to be lower than in othercontexts. In fact, errors within games are often viewed more asfeedback than as external evaluation. For example, gamers playingMonkey Bowling 2 showed physiological indications of positiveaffect, rather than negative affect, following errors in game play(Ravaja et al., 2005). This finding suggests that one potentiallyuseful feature of gaming in education is changing how studentsinterpret error, specifically, changing children’s attributions oferror and failure from negative external evaluation to constructivefeedback.

Flow statesFlow has been described as an optimal state of being in whichone experiences intense focus or concentration, a merging ofaction and awareness, and a high sense of agency (i.e., high senseof control; Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2002). Flow is animportant dimension of the positive psychology of gaming in thatit includes positive emotions, feedback indicating how well theindividual is performing the particular activity, performance thatoften occurs at a level above the previous skill level of the indi-vidual, and is associated with intrinsic rewards (Nakamura andCsikszentmihalyi, 2002; McGonigal, 2011). The flow state appearsto combine low levels of anxiety and an optimal skill gap (Berlyne,1960). The balance of achieving a flow state is dependent uponboth the challenge and skills required for the activity (Cowleyet al., 2008). If the challenge is too difficult, the player could expe-rience anxiety. If the challenge is too easy, then boredom couldoccur.

Because the components necessary to elicit flow discussedabove are often present within video games (e.g., matchingskill level to task difficulty) games are seen as flow machines(McGonigal, 2011). Playing a video game provides immediate

feedback for contextual learning and matches player skills to gamedifficulty. Games often elicit intense focus of attention associatedwith flow states (Przybylski et al., 2010).

Although games appear to be well-suited to eliciting flowstates, is eliciting flow useful for science education? Increasingthe positive emotional experience associated with science educa-tion is a potentially important factor in engagement. Certainly,it would be helpful for students to be as engaged in activi-ties related to science education as they are engaged in a videogame such as World of Warcraft for the simple reason that timespent in deliberate practice is highly related to emerging expertise(Son and Simon, 2012). Gamification can be useful in increas-ing high levels of sustained attention, which are critical in thetype of deliberate practice associated with emerging expertise.Flow also offers the ability to overcome temporal discountingassociated with achieving long-term rewards with both less timeand energy spent attaining that reward than traditional educationapproaches.

Instructional methods such as direct instruction (e.g., Klahrand Chen, 2011) and discovery learning (e.g., Schwartz et al.,2011) may differ in the extent to which they elicit flow. Forexample, discovery learning may be better suited for elicitingflow than direct instruction because discovery learning is self-paced, provides more immediate feedback/rewards, explorationmay provide a means for regulating the information gap, and thestakes of error/failure may be lower compared to direct instruc-tion. Although discovery learning has some advantages, studentsoften fail to learn during unstructured discovery learning (i.e.,providing little or no guidance to students; Klahr, 2012).

One open question is the extent to which eliciting flowstates would demonstrate benefits in science education out-comes. Because one must learn to progress within a game,learning is inherent in game play. However, learning appearsto be a condition upon which flow states occur. Achieving thetypes of skills most associated with flow states (e.g., as seen inexperts; Bakker, 2008) requires deliberate practice that is associ-ated with few immediate rewards. For example, expert pianistswere more likely to experience flow states as the amount ofrehearsal increased (de Manzano et al., 2010). Students com-peting in U.S. national spelling bees were more likely to bemotivated to persist in deliberate practice even when they wereshowing few signs of improvement (Duckworth et al., 2011).This level of persistence was associated with extremely high taskperformance and suggests that motivation for practice, evenwhen associated with immediate rewards, is linked to mas-tery. The metacognitive reflection necessary for increasing sci-ence understanding may also be at odds with flow states. Ifflow is more likely to occur when implementing sequences ofrehearsed procedures, then the deliberative and metacognitiveprocesses of scientific reasoning may be a poor fit for gamingelements.

Perhaps a better fit between flow and science education is todetermine the contexts, tasks, and skill levels in which elicitingflow would be useful for developing science knowledge and skills.For example, parts of skill learning and active investigation arelikely to be enhanced by the positive experiences associated withachieving flow, similar to videogames. These tasks will be most

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 6

Morris et al. Gaming science

useful if they are paired with tasks that promote deliberative, goal-directed effort, and metacognitive reflection about the processesand content under study.

COGNITIVE SCAFFOLDSThe cognitive skills used in scientific thinking include identi-fying problems, generating hypotheses, designing experiments,collecting data, evaluating evidence, and making inferences(Zimmerman, 2007). In authentic science and in all high-levelcognitive work, when we solve complex problems, we use toolsin the environment to reduce cognitive load. We transform com-plex serial problems into the type of pattern-recognition-basedproblems we are good at (Mareschal et al., 2007). In science, ourtoolkit contains both conceptual tools, such as hypothesis testingand evidence evaluation, and concrete tools, such as notebooks,diagrams, and computers (Morris et al., 2012; Zimmerman andCroker, in press). Over the last decade, many educational gameshave been developed with a consideration of the conceptualtools (i.e., cognitive skills) used in scientific thinking. In thefollowing section, we review five ways in which games scaffoldcognitive processes: providing simulations, situating cognition,distributing knowledge and promoting collaboration, promot-ing the values of science, and engaging in real-world problemsolving.

SimulationMany educational video games are explicitly designed so thatplayers enter physical, biological, or social systems. For exam-ple, River City is a multi-user virtual environment in whichsmall teams of students conduct scientific investigations into anepidemic affecting a historical town (Galas and Ketelhut, 2006;Nelson et al., 2007). River City was designed to help low-achievingstudents improve in science, specifically with respect to knowl-edge of biology and ecology, hypothesis generation, and exper-imental design (Dede et al., 2005). The game is inquiry-based:students have to identify problems, collect and evaluate data, anddraw conclusions. Middle school students who played this gameoutperformed a control group with respect to their knowledge ofbiology. Classrooms using River City had higher levels of engage-ment in science, better attendance, and fewer disruptions (Dedeet al., 2005).

In Supercharged!, students inhabit a physical system. Playerspilot a spaceship that can adopt properties of a charged parti-cle. In the game, students navigate through a high school elec-trostatics curriculum. Squire et al. (2004) found that studentswho played Supercharged! developed a deeper understanding ofphysics, developed a better understanding of the representationsused in physics textbooks than students who did not play thegame, and that lower-achieving students experienced the greatestgains in understanding.

In Quest Atlantis (Barab et al., 2005), elementary and middleschoolers learn elements of the science curriculum related to thesocial aspects of science such as social responsibility and environ-mental awareness. The skills promoted in Quest Atlantis are notjust those needed by scientists, but by scientifically literate citi-zens. When playing this game, children enter a world in whichpro-science values are fostered, a point we shall return to shortly.

Environmental Detectives (Klopfer et al., 2004; Klopfer andSquire, 2008) blurs the border between simulation and realityby combining a video game played on a portable computer withnavigation through real-world spaces. The objective is to teachscientific and engineering skills through action, identity, and col-laboration. In Environmental Detectives, players work in teams toresearch a chemical spill on a college campus. The game featuresmany aspects of scientific thinking, including data collection, dataevaluation, asking questions, discussion, and argumentation inteams, and understanding what knowledge is needed to proceed.This game is designed to be authentic with respect to the practicesof environmental engineers, involving the integration of primaryand secondary data. The problem presented to players is com-plex, ambiguous, and open-ended, unlike typical school scienceassignments.

Biohazard is an undergraduate-level biology and environmen-tal science game that was later used to help first responders learnhow to deal with chemical attacks in public spaces. Players work inteams to save civilians in the event of gas attack, and to locate thesource of the gas. Biohazard embeds learning scientific knowledgeabout chemicals and the symptoms of exposure alongside inves-tigation skills and increased communication and problem solvingskills among players (Squire, 2003; cited in Squire and Jenkins,2003).

The games discussed in this section were designed to teachscientific and investigative practices using conceptual tools.However, there is a much wider class of video game that aidsproblem solving through concrete tools, and gives us practice inusing such tools. For example, many strategy games (e.g., Age ofEmpires) require extensive use of maps. Thus, the possible utilityof video games as a vehicle for the development of scientific think-ing goes beyond the explicit inclusion of cognitive skills relatingto generating, testing, and revising hypotheses. The educationalgames described above involve simulations, but simulations arealso a feature of commercial games. Gee (2009) argues thatcommercial video games are ideal tools for learning for severalreasons; one of which is that they are simulations. Scientists usesimulations to make predictions, manipulate variables, observeeffects, and try to understand complex systems. Although thescientist is outside the system, she may often try to understandit by situating herself inside the system. Scientists can imaginethey are in their simulations; they can talk about how they mightbehave if they were an element in a complex system, such as anelectron or an ant. Video games explicitly place the player insidesimulations in which variables interact. Games are set up as prob-lems, with goals, operations, strategies, and resources. Playersmust learn how the system works: what the rules are, what works,and what does not work. Scientists do something very similarin that they try to understand “rules” underlying systems. Videogames are thus inherently about induction and rule discovery,regardless of the content of the game (Greenfield et al., 1994).Furthermore, video games foster an attitude or stance towardsimulations similar to that adopted by people doing authenticscience. The fact that games are, in this way, similar to whatscientists do does not mean that players learn scientific con-cepts, but rather that such games lead people toward systemsthinking.

www.frontiersin.org September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 7

Morris et al. Gaming science

Situating cognitionA second important way in which video games—whether edu-cational or commercial—support cognitive skills is through sit-uating cognition. In video games, cognition is “situated” becausegames provide contextualized opportunities for the application ofknowledge and the exercise of skills and strategies. Gee (2008b)refers to games as “action- and goal-directed simulations ofembodied experience” (p. 254). In accord with ecological, situ-ated, and embodied approaches to cognitive science (e.g., Clarkand Chalmers, 1998; Spivey, 2007), we can conceptualize thinkingas being engaged in simulations preparing us for situated action.The simulations we build when we think are geared toward goals,or “winning.” Gee’s argument is that simulation games are anexternalized version of the mind and, as such, provide us witha support for engaging in thought. Educators and game develop-ers have leveraged this metaphor of games-as-mind by designinggames in which players act in the role of scientists. For exam-ple, in both River City and Environmental Detectives, players aregiven problems similar to those faced by scientists. The aim isto get players to approach these problems as a scientist would.In addition, games can use the adoption of identities to fostermore meaningful learning. In science classes, students are givenproblems and goals that are posed by others. However, practicingscientists define their own goals, within a larger social-historicalcontext. As a result, personal and professional identities of sci-entists are aligned. Students do not get this identity alignmentunless they also get to set their own goals, or at least come tounderstand externally imposed goals in ways that are meaningfulto them (Gee, 2005a).

Distributed knowledge (or Virtual collaboration)One way in which video games support players’ adoption ofgoals as meaningful is through distributed knowledge and skills(Gee, 2005a, 2009). Some games involve cooperating with vir-tual characters who possess knowledge and skills the player lacks;essentially virtual mentors who provide scaffolding and engagein instructional dialogs with the player (Wood et al., 1976; Chi,2009). The player and the virtual characters work as a team,each deploying specialist knowledge, in a context in which allhave shared values and attitudes toward the tasks the player isengaged in. Distributing knowledge in this way reduces the cog-nitive load on the player. The player can then perform in thegame before developing full competence. Stated differently, mas-tery of the game is not necessary in order to play. The notionof performance before competence is at odds with the tradi-tional educational process of competence before performance,in which students are required to learn a lot before engagingin practice. Video games could be designed such that play-ers act as team members engaged in scientific activities. Oneof the aims here would be for the player to internalize thevalues of scientists. Gee (2005b) refers to the distribution ofknowledge and skills as authentic professionalism, arguing thatsolving specific problems as part of such a team gives play-ers the experience of how real-life professionals solve problems,regardless of whether the domain is law, medicine, urban plan-ning, or science. Embedding a player in a distributed knowl-edge domain allows the player to observe and engage in a

discourse that is shaped by the values shared by experts in agiven area of expertise. In order to show students the worldsof science, we need to situate them within the discourse andvalues of science—and games may be a way of achieving thisembeddedness.

Values and identityShaffer (2005) refers to experts’ communities of practice as havingepistemic frames, or ways of knowing about the world influencedby specific disciplines. These frames are constituted by practice,identity, interest, understanding, and epistemology. When stu-dents become part of a culture of science, for example, theirepistemic frames are the internalization of scientific conventions.Shaffer proposes taking epistemic frames and using them tocreate epistemic games. Some examples of epistemic games, inwhich players are embedded in a specialist community, includeMadison 2200 (urban planning), Digital Zoo (engineering), andNephrotex (engineering). Digital Zoo helps students understandprinciples of engineering, and also the ways in which engineersthink (Svarovsky, 2009). Nephrotex is aimed at first-year collegestudents, who engage in engineering role play in the game in orderto develop not just knowledge and skills, but also the values andidentities of engineers (Shaffer et al., 2011). Arastoopour et al.(2012) report that women who played Nephrotex developed morepositive views of engineering as a career than women who did notplay the game.

Preparation for real-world problem solvingVideo games can support training and practice in deployingcognitive skills essential for scientific thinking and also pro-vide an apprenticeship in thinking—and acting—as a scientist.Apprenticeship in thinking and problem solving through play andother informal teaching is not a recent innovation. It is typical forchildren to be given learning experiences that represent the kindsof problems they will face in adult life (Rogoff, 1990; Mareschalet al., 2007). In recent history we have come to rely on educationin addition to informal experiences. In schools we formalize theproblems that children will need to master for survival (broadlyconstrued), such as literacy and numeracy. Video games presentopportunities for us to expose children and students to problemsthey will face in the future, such as the energy crisis and climatechange.

These socio-scientific problems facing us are complex andlarge-scale and require us to think of potential solutions in termsof decades and centuries. McGonigal (2011) argues that “Godgames” (e.g., Civilization, Black & White) foster thinking abouthow events unfold over long timespans and about our actionsin terms of long-term outcomes, a critical component of link-ing observations over time to detect patterns in evidence, bothimportant skills in scientific reasoning. In addition, these gamespromote systems thinking, in which we come to conceptualizeworlds in terms of interconnected parts, and understand how theimpact of an intervention in one subsystem affects other systems.God games also allow players to generate and test different solu-tions to problems. Players can design and conduct tests, employstrategies, and run simulations to look for the strategy that yieldsthe best outcomes.

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 8

Morris et al. Gaming science

Forecasting games also promote thinking about the future. Forexample, in World Without Oil, players are asked what would hap-pen if oil started running out today. Players devise scenarios ofwhat would happen, but also think about how to overcome theproblems the oil shortage would create. Because the game reflectsa real-world problem, players are actually thinking and planningabout something that will occur. They cooperate and collaborateto create solutions for when it does happen. In addition to engag-ing people in thinking about a problem, the game also led somepeople to change their habits (e.g., reusing bags, driving less, recy-cling; McGonigal, 2011). Turning a future problem into a gameallows us to take advantage of the voluntary participation com-ponent of gaming. If a problem hits us now, we are not engagingwith it voluntarily, and do not spend as much time engaging ina thoughtful, motivated way. Voluntary gaming, in contrast, canfoster interest, curiosity, motivation, effort, and optimism. Thereare no immediate, real, negative outcomes, so players have spaceto think about the problem.

EVOKE is a multiplayer game designed to promote youngpeople’s thinking about real-world problems in a game context.Examples of the problems players have engaged with includefood, energy, and human rights. African universities want toengage students in real-world problems; EVOKE may meetthis kind of need. EVOKE has led to real-world implementa-tions of proposed solutions. For example, a food-productionskills program in South Africa, and converting boats to solarpower in Jordan to reduce fuel and the impact on nature(McGonigal, 2011).

METACOGNITIVE SCAFFOLDSMetacognition is an important component of scientific thinkinginvolving the accurate monitoring of one’s own knowledge andskills. Kuhn (1989, 2005) argues that the defining feature of sci-entific thinking is the set of cognitive and metacognitive skillsinvolved in differentiating and coordinating theory and evidence.Kuhn (2005) further posits that the effective coordination of the-ory and evidence depends on three metacognitive abilities: (a)encoding and representing evidence and theory separately, so thatrelations between them can be recognized; (b) treating theories asindependent objects of thought (i.e., rather than a representationof “the way things are”); and (c) recognizing that theories can befalse, setting aside the acceptance of a theory so evidence can beassessed to determine the veridicality of the theory.

These metacognitive abilities are necessary precursors tosophisticated scientific thinking, and represent one of the waysin which children, adults, and professional scientists differ. Whenwe consider the larger social context, it is clear that these typesof metacognitive skills that are highly valued by the scien-tific community may be at odds with the cultural and intu-itive views of the individual reasoner (Lemke, 2001). Evidenceis not just evaluated in the context of the science investiga-tion and science classroom, but within personal and communityvalues. In order for children’s behavior to go beyond demon-strating the correctness of one’s existing beliefs (e.g., Dunbarand Klahr, 1989) it is necessary for meta-level competencies tobe developed and practiced (Kuhn, 2005). With metacognitivecontrol over the processes involved, children can change what

they believe based on evidence and, in doing so, become cog-nizant that they are changing a belief, and understand why theyare changing that belief. Thus, sophisticated reasoning involvesboth the use of various strategies involved in hypothesis test-ing, induction, inference, and evidence evaluation, and a meta-level awareness of when, how, and why one should engage inthese strategies. In the following section, we review five types ofmetacognitive scaffolds: knowledge, contexts, identity, memory,and strategies.

Metacognitive knowledgeAs in science—and life in general—gamers need to metaphori-cally stand outside the task they are engaged in and examine theirassumptions or beliefs about how a system works. In video games,players often need to ask themselves whether an aspect of thegame really works the way they think it does, or whether theyhave all the knowledge needed to carry out a particular opera-tion in order to reach a goal. Asking these questions representsa metacognitive awareness of knowledge. Gamers also need toengage in metacognitive regulation: planning, monitoring, andevaluating actions and outcomes. We argue that effective andengaging video games promote metacognitive activity by makingit hard for players to make progress unless they reflect on howto succeed in a task and ask what knowledge or skills they aremissing when they cannot overcome an obstacle. Furthermore,activities—including games—that are most effective in develop-ing, supporting, and promoting scientific thinking must includemetacognitive awareness of, and reflection on, knowledge andpractices. Failure to make progress in educational contexts canresult in disengagement from the activity, whereas failure in videogames often results in persistence. Some reasons for this situationare described in the section on motivation above. In overcom-ing obstacles, and in preparation for repeating behaviors that aresuccessful, it is very useful to understand why a behavior led tosuccess, and in what contexts it should be used.

Metacognitive understanding of concepts and skills is facili-tated when they are contextualized. Gee (2005a) notes that ingames, unlike in education, players do not start by learning a setof isolated facts; they learn by taking on an identity and becom-ing immersed in a virtual world. Players learn through experience,but the experiences are constrained and scaffolded. For example,Evans and Biedler (2011) discuss “Mission: Evolution,” an infor-mal science learning project in which middle and high schoolstudents explored concepts in evolutionary biology using SporeGalactic Adventures. Students would construct a game illustrat-ing a scientific concept, such as adaptation or speciation, onlyto realize they did not have all the conceptual knowledge neces-sary to complete the task. In order to overcome the obstacle ofinsufficient knowledge, students had to use metacognitive skills toreflect on their knowledge and identify what they knew and whatthey did not know. Constrained exploration has been used as analternative to direct instruction and shows promise in instruc-tional contexts (Schwartz et al., 2011). Eighth graders learnedand transferred knowledge about the concept of density in ahighly constrained learning environment that provided contrast-ing examples to support reflection as they learned (Schwartz et al.,2011).

www.frontiersin.org September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 9

Morris et al. Gaming science

In science contexts for which students do not possess a largebody of knowledge to guide their investigations, they cannot useheuristics to constrain the problem space. Thus, prior knowl-edge and metacognitive skills are necessary to engage in unguidedscientific inquiry. Gee (2005a) gives the example of Galileo’s dis-covery of the laws of pendulums. Galileo applied his existingknowledge of geometry to the problem. Without this knowledge,the problem space is much larger. Giving children pendulums toplay with and expecting them to recreate Galileo’s work is to givethem a task more difficult that the one that faced Galileo. Geeargues that domain knowledge can best be described as the abil-ity to use prior knowledge and conjecture to construct mentalmodels or simulations to plan actions. In science, such mentalactivity is typically referred to as hypothetical thinking (Amsel,2011). Gamers can then apply their existing knowledge to eval-uate the outcome and decide whether the simulation is a goodone. A verbal description of a scientific concept is less helpful thana simulation of how the concept applies in a situation. The lat-ter, according to Gee, prepares one for action and dialog in therelevant domain. Facts are easier to learn when they are compo-nents needed to build good simulations rather than when they arenot embedded in a context. Gee contends that, just as in games,students can use simulations in science domains to consider sev-eral actions and the associated outcomes, plan a course of action,evaluate the outcomes, and use this information to construct newsimulations for better outcomes in the future.

ContextTreating theory and evidence as distinct—a key metacognitiveskill in scientific thinking—requires us to suspend prior beliefs inorder to evaluate evidence without prejudice. Many video gamesrequire the suspension of prior beliefs, as there may be manyaspects of the virtual game world that conflict with our knowledgeand experience of reality. For example, all of our assumptionsabout the behaviors of birds and pigs are violated in Angry Birds,and any game in which characters possess magical abilities, suchas World of Warcraft or the Final Fantasy series, violate ourassumptions about physics. In other games—and in keeping withArthur C. Clarke (1962) famous assertion—such abilities may becast as the result of advanced technology rather than magic (e.g.,the Portal gun). Video games present explicit fantasy contexts. Infantasy contexts it is easier to accept evidence that contradictsprior beliefs than in the real world, particularly for young chil-dren (Amsel et al., 2005). Children also tend to treat improbablephysical, biological, or psychological events as impossible situa-tions (Shtulman and Carey, 2007; Shtulman, 2009). Gamers, incontrast, can soon come to realize and accept that the laws gov-erning a game are not necessarily the same as those that apply inthe real world. Gamers can propose hypotheses about the natureof the virtual world without conflict, whereas in science the con-flict between naïve beliefs and a scientific understanding can bedifficult to negotiate.

IdentityAnother aspect of many games that reduces conflict betweenexisting knowledge and values and scientific knowledge and val-ues is the use of a virtual identity. In the classroom, a child

has an identity that has values about and attitudes toward sci-ence. In some cases, this identity may be that of someone whois good at science and who comes from a family in which sci-ence is valued. In other cases, the child’s identity may be that ofsomeone who does not enjoy school, does not do well in scienceclasses, who may be anxious about science and mathematics, hasgender-related misconceptions about science and math abilities,or has family values that conflict with scientific explanations ofthe world (Lemke, 2001; Gee, 2003). In games in which playersassume the role of a given or self-created character (e.g., Worldof Warcraft), they can behave as the character would behave, andadopt beliefs and values that may not be the same as their own.If this aspect of games were incorporated into science learning,children could adopt the virtual identity of a scientist; this couldreduce anxiety as well as reducing the conflict between what achild may assume to be true and what the evidence suggests.The learner can adopt two perspectives simultaneously—that ofherself and that of a scientist, in the same way children reg-ularly do in a game context. There is empirical evidence thatadopting a scientific perspective has an effect on college students’beliefs about science and performance on science and reasoningproblems. Amsel et al. (2008) asked some participants to com-plete a ratio-bias task whilst adopting the perspective of a logicalperson and others to just complete the task. The former groupgave more analytic responses than the latter. The manipulationenabled participants to inhibit heuristic responses. Amsel et al.(2009) asked introductory psychology students to think like theirprofessor when completing a questionnaire on beliefs about psy-chology, which increased the number of students who endorsedpsychology as a science. Similarly, when Amsel and Johnston(2008) asked physics students to think like their physics professor,the students exhibited improved performance on physics prob-lems. Furthermore, giving children choices about the name oftheir character and the icon representing the player can result inincreased willingness to engage in an educational game (Cordovaand Lepper, 1996).

MetamemoryIn addition to an awareness of the knowledge required to solvea problem, scientific practice is facilitated by an awareness ofthe limitations of our cognitive abilities, such as memory. Manystudies demonstrate that both children and adults are not alwaysmetacognitively aware of their memory limitations while engagedin investigation tasks (e.g., Siegler and Liebert, 1975; Dunbar andKlahr, 1989; Gleason and Schauble, 2000; Trafton and Trickett,2001; Garcia-Mila and Andersen, 2007). Children are less likelythan adults to record experimental designs and outcomes, or toreview any notes they do make, despite task demands that clearlynecessitate a reliance on external memory aids. Instead, childrenmay depend on familiarity or strength of prior beliefs (Kanariand Millar, 2004). Video games can also help to reduce thedemands placed on working memory while engaged in problem-solving behaviors as many games keep track of resources andprior accomplishments. Further, if a player forgets whether shehas tried to solve a problem in a particular way, she can try againwith little cost. Although video games probably do not foster thedevelopment of metamemory, they can reduce cognitive load.

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 10

Morris et al. Gaming science

Metastrategic competenceVideo games can also scaffold players’ metastrategic compe-tence: understanding when and why different strategies shouldbe deployed. As a game progresses, different strategies can berevealed to players, along with instruction on when it is appro-priate to use them. Such metastrategic competence does notappear to routinely develop in the absence of instruction. Kuhnand her colleagues have incorporated the use of specific practiceopportunities and prompts to help children develop these typesof competencies. For example, Kuhn et al. (2000) incorporatedperformance-level practice and metastrategic-level practice forsixth- to eighth-grade students. Performance-level exercise con-sisted of standard exploration of the task environment, whereasmetastrategic-level practice consisted of scenarios in which twoindividuals disagreed about the effect of a particular feature ina multivariable situation. Although no performance differenceswere found between the two types of practice with respect tothe number of valid inferences, there were more sizeable dif-ferences in measures of metastrategic understanding. Similarly,Zohar and Peled (2008) examined the benefits of focusing onmetastrategic competence during instruction of the control-of-variables strategy (CVS). Fifth-graders were given a metastrategicknowledge intervention in which CVS was described, and thecircumstances under which it should be used were discussed.The intervention led to both strategic and metastrategic gains.It is clear from these studies that although meta-level competen-cies may not develop routinely, they can certainly be learned viaexplicit instruction.

Given the developmental trajectories of metacognitive,metamemory, and metastrategic skills, one could argue that videogames cannot support the development of scientific reasoningskills in learners who lack the necessary metacognitive compe-tences to take advantage of such support. Alternatively, it maybe the case that video games scaffold developing metacognitiveskills and make it possible for children to develop their scientificreasoning skills at a greater rate. Use of cognitive and metacogni-tive strategies is context-dependent (Cheng and Annetta, 2012).Ceci and Bronfenbrenner (1985) found an effect of context forchildren’s behavior on two prospective memory tasks: taking cup-cakes out of the oven and disconnecting charging cables froma motorcycle battery. Children performed the tasks more effi-ciently, and were better able to engage in concurrent tasks, intheir own homes than in a university laboratory. In a similar vein,when given tasks concerning the specific knowledge domains ofchess and football, children’s performance depended on theirdomain-specific knowledge rather than their intelligence (Chi,1978; Schneider et al., 1989). Because video games provide famil-iar contexts for many children, it could certainly be the casethat games facilitate the use of metacognitive strategies com-pared to more formal educational or laboratory contexts. Chengand Annetta (2012) provide evidence in favor of the argumentthat a video game context can promote metacognitive strate-gies. They used a serious educational game (“serious” in thiscontext refers to a deliberate effort to educate) to instruct middle-school students about the effects of methamphetamine on thebrain. Qualitative analyses of students’ answers to post-task inter-view questions revealed that students monitored their learning,

evaluated the information presented, showed awareness of thenew knowledge they were acquiring, and made judgments oflearning.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSIn this paper we have attempted to outline a rationale for whywe believe that video games have the potential to be exploited foreducational gain. We argue that science, and science education,are highly social, collaborative, and scaffolded activities that areculturally situated and depend upon the use of cultural tools. Wesuggest that video games should be considered a type of culturaltool that can be used to scaffold science learning. Specifically, weproposed that video games have the potential to facilitate learn-ing both science content and science process skills. Further, wesuggested that elements of video games (e.g., they are intrinsicallymotivating and often make use of elements of science process)could be used to improve classroom-based science education.Although there are many other mechanisms by which games canbe thought to afford learning, we focused our analysis on view-ing video games as motivational scaffolds, cognitive scaffolds, andmetacognitive scaffolds.

WHAT’S THE EVIDENCE?As mentioned previously, there is evidence that video games affectgeneral cognitive domains, such as spatial cognition and prob-abilistic inferences (e.g., Feng et al., 2007; Green et al., 2010;Bavelier et al., 2012). However, there is not yet much evidencefor the effectiveness of games in science instruction or learning(O’Neil et al., 2005; Ke, 2009). The impact of games has been lim-ited to particular components of education, for example, Malone(1981) and Malone and Lepper (1987) report that games createhighly motivated learning conditions. There is little evidence thatgames, on their own, promote developing scientific skills, under-standing of science content, or an understanding of the nature ofscience.

Recent reviews of research on gaming in education have allsupported the same conclusion: right now, there is inconclu-sive and insufficient evidence for us to make any strong claimsabout the efficacy of video games. The National Research Council(2011) convened a panel of experts to investigate the academicpotential of video games and computer simulations for learn-ing science. Their analysis of video games focused on games thatsupport inquiry approaches to science education. For example,computer simulations were found to have a greater influenceon science learning, relative to non-science games. The conclu-sion of the National Research Council (2011) report was thatthe current state of research on the use of video games to sup-port learning in science is “inconclusive.” Nevertheless, the reportincludes an entire chapter focused on future research aimed atexploring the “great potential” that games and simulations havefor science learning. Concurrently, Tobias and Fletcher (2011)synthesized research on games designed for learning contexts.Although not specific to science, the overall conclusion of theirvolume is consistent with that of the National Research Council(2011) report. They also suggest that additional research is nec-essary to demonstrate the effectiveness of games in educationalcontexts. Young et al. (2012) also reviewed existing research on

www.frontiersin.org September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 11

Morris et al. Gaming science

video games and academic achievement in math, science, lan-guage learning, history, and physical education. Their conclusionwas that “many educationally interesting games exist, yet evidencefor their impact on student achievement is slim” (p. 61). Similarly,although their review did support the effectiveness of educationalgames, they recommend the need for more research. A reviewof gaming in education by McClarty et al. (2012) also outlinesthe many theoretical reasons why games should be effective (e.g.,forced mastery, motivation, feedback, engagement, planning, funfailure, choice, agency). However, they also come to the conclu-sion that although games like Crystal Island, River City, and QuestAtlantis incorporate what is known about cognition and motiva-tion, research supporting their effectiveness is still inconclusive.They reiterate that games may work best when coupled with otherpedagogy, and “will not replace teachers and classrooms, but theymight replace some textbooks and laboratories” (p. 13).

NEXT STEPSWhen two review articles and two book-length reviews all con-clude that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to supportthe idea that video games are effective at promoting learning ineducational contexts, is it rational for researchers to continue todevote time and resources to this line of inquiry? Although thesefindings could be interpreted in a pessimistic light, Zimmerman(in press) argues that we should continue to conduct researchon whether elements of video game play can be exploited foreducational gain, and outlines a new research agenda. First,video games used to scaffold skills in science education mustbe of high quality. Second, we need precise research questions.Although previous reviews point to the common conclusion thatresearch to date is “inconclusive” it may be that research thusfar has been guilty of proposing overly broad research questions.Third, we need to identify the problems in science educationthat need solutions. These include specific problems that wealso identified at the beginning of our article, such as recruit-ing and retaining people in STEM careers, and general problemssuch as promoting scientific literacy in the wider population.Fourth, in the light of identified problems, we need to specifyhigh-level, and specific, learning goals. Fifth, as we are inter-ested in science education, we need to consult the psychologicalresearch on scientific thinking when designing educational cur-ricula that incorporate video games as a means of developingscientific skills. Sixth, we need to map the specific learning goalsthat have been identified to learning activities and measurableoutcomes. Seventh, we need to conduct high-quality research onthe effects of particular video games on specific science educa-tion outcomes. Finally, we need to see games as cultural tools forscience education, rather than potential replacements for scienceinstruction.

PROBLEMS WITH EDUCATIONAL GAMESSquire (2008) notes a number of ways in which educational gamesare different from commercial games. Serious games are oftennot as sophisticated as commercial games. The Research andDevelopment that is available for commercial games is typicallymuch more complete than for educational games. Commercialgames are developed, programmed, and tested using teams of

experts with access to substantial capital, while those with con-tent expertise and little game expertise often create educationalgames. The time on task that is allowed for educational gamesis also quite different than a commercial game. For example,a user may spend 20 h per week on a game for many monthsin the quest to master it, whereas the typical science lesson ismuch shorter. It is also likely that serious games may be morelikely to mimic typical classroom instruction, rather than har-nessing the engaging elements that are built into commercialgames. Habgood and Ainsworth (2011) note that while commer-cial games are intrinsically motivating, many educational gamesuse gameplay as a reward for learning educational content, thusthe gameplay becomes an extrinsic motivator. They argue thateducational games should feature intrinsic integration, whereinthe learning activities are tightly integrated with the gameplay andoccur during the most engaging parts of a game, thus exploitingthe flow generated by the game. Furthermore, the game should beused as a context in which to present external representations ofthe concepts to be learned.

Another potential difficulty is the transfer of learning from thegaming context to a novel (e.g., non-gaming) context. Childrenoften demonstrate knowledge within the context in which itwas learned, yet fail to transfer this knowledge even to closelyrelated contexts (Klahr and Chen, 2011; Schwartz et al., 2011).Scientific skills cannot be assumed to transfer even within sub-disciplines of the same scientific domain. For example, Schunnand Anderson (1999) found differences between cognitive psy-chologists and social/developmental psychologists on a task inwhich the participants were asked to design an experiment totest two theories of human memory. One consistent finding isthat transfer is more likely given high similarity between the con-text in which learning occurred and the target context (Klahrand Chen, 2011). Gaming contexts may be even less likely topromote transfer because they are often highly dissimilar fromtraditional educational contexts (e.g., lab experiments in scienceclasses).

A promising example of an educational game that embod-ies many of the principles discussed in this paper is OperationARA (Butler et al., 2011; Halpern et al., 2012). This game isdesigned to teach scientific reasoning and critical thinking skillsto undergraduate students and advanced high schoolers. Thekey concept of identifying flawed scientific research is embed-ded in the gameplay and made more interesting by situating theproblem in a context of an alien conspiracy to trick humans.Operation ARA is built on pedagogical principles, such as spacedpractice and adaptive tutoring, and incorporates the motivationaltools of interactivity, feedback, and incentives. Preliminary resultsindicate that students who played Operation ARA demonstratedmore knowledge of scientific research methods than a controlgroup.

CONCLUSIONSRather than think of modern science education as “broken,” weprefer to consider the ways in which we have learned enough basicresearch about motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive devel-opment to engineer a superior product (i.e., learning experience).We suggested that games are cultural and educational tools for

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 12

Morris et al. Gaming science

science education and that games have unique strengths thatcan be used to augment science education. Incorporating gamesinto science instruction requires careful consideration of theirstrengths (e.g., intrinsically motivating) and weaknesses (e.g.,unclear links to science content). In order to achieve maximumbenefit, like any tool games need to be used at the right timein the right way. Rather than thinking of video games as thenext potential educational panacea, we need to reframe the ques-tion/goal. We return to our analogy of promoting optimal health.Optimal instruction, like optimal health, is the result of many

contributing factors, rather than a single, causal factor. Althougheach contributes, none on their own guarantees optimal healthin the absence of the others. There is no “magic bullet” relatedto optimal health of health and there is no “magic bullet” ineducation. As in health, knowledge of the constituent compo-nents that contribute to effective education allows us to createcontexts in which student learning is more likely. One of the com-ponents that we feel has the potential to contribute to moderneducation is the “gamification” of particular elements of scienceeducation.

REFERENCESAdachi, P. J., and Willoughby, T. (2013).

More than just fun and games: thelongitudinal relationships betweenstrategic video games, self-reportedproblem solving skills, and aca-demic grades. J. Youth Adolesc.42, 1041–1052. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9913-9

Amsel, E. (2011). “Hypothetical think-ing in adolescence: its nature,development, and applications,”in Adolescence: Vulnerabilities andOpportunities, eds J. Smetana and E.Amsel (New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press), 86–113. doi:10.1017/CB09781139042819.007

Amsel, E., Cottrell, J., Sullivan, J., andBowden, T. (2005). “Anticipatingand avoiding regret as a modelof adolescent decision-making,” inThe Development of Judgment andDecision-Making in Children andAdolescence, eds J. Jacobs and P.Klaczynski (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum),119–154.

Amsel, E., and Johnston, A. (2008).“The role of imagination in concep-tual change,” in Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of AERA (NewYork, NY).

Amsel, E., Johnston, A., Alvarado, E.,Kettering, J., Rankin, R., and Ward,M. (2009). The effect of perspectiveon misconceptions in psychology:a test of conceptual change theory.J. Instr. Psychol. 36, 289–295.

Amsel, E., Klaczynski, P. A., Johnston,A., Bench, S., Close, J., Sadler, E.,et al. (2008). A dual-process accountof the development of scientific rea-soning: the nature and develop-ment of metacognitive intercessionskills. Cogn. Dev. 23, 452–471. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.002

Annetta, L. A. (2008). SeriousEducational Games. Rotterdam:Sense Publishers.

Arastoopour, G., Chesler, N. C.,D’Angelo, C. M., Shaffer, D. W.,Opgenorth, J. W., Reardan, C. B.,et al. (2012). “Nephrotex: mea-suring first year students’ ways ofprofessional thinking in a virtual

internship,” in Paper presented atAmerican Society for EngineeringEducation 2012 (San Antonio, TX).

Bakker, A. B. (2008). The work-relatedflow inventory: construction andinitial validation of the WOLF.J. Vocat. Behav. 72, 400–414. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11.007

Barab, S. A., and Dede, C. (2007).Games and immersive participa-tory simulations for science educa-tion: an emerging type of curricula.J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 16, 1–3. doi:10.1007/s10956-007-9043-9

Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., Dodge,Carteaux, R., and Tuzun, H.(2005). Making learning fun: questAtlantis, a game without guns.Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 53, 86–108.doi: 10.1007/BF02504859

Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan,S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble,A., Zuiker, S. J., et al. (2009).Transformational play as a curric-ular scaffold: using videogames tosupport science education. J. Sci.Educ. Technol. 18, 305–320. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9171-5

Baumeister, R. F., Hutton, D. G.,and Cairns, K. J. (1990). Negativeeffects of praise on skilled perfor-mance. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 11,131–148. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp1102_2

Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., Pouget,A., and Schrater, P. (2012). Brainplasticity through the life span:learning to learn and action videogames. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 35,391–416. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-152832

Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A.,Ramirez, G., and Levine, S.C. (2010). Female teachers’math anxiety affects girls’ mathachievement. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. U.S.A. 107, 1860–1863. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910967107

Berlyne, D. F. (1960). Conflict,Arousal and Curiosity. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill. doi:10.1037/11164-000

Boot, W. R., Kramer, A. F., Simons,D. J., Fabiani, M., and Gratton,

G. (2008). The effects of videogame playing on attention, mem-ory, and executive control. ActaPsychol. (Amst.) 129, 387–398. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.09.005

Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise:a functional analysis. Rev.Educ. Res. 51, 5–32. doi:10.3102/00346543051001005

Butler, H. A., Forsyth, C., Halpern,D. F., Graesser, A. C., and Millis,K. (2011). “Secret agents, alienspies, and a quest to save the world:operation ARIES! Engages studentsin scientific reasoning and criticalthinking,” in Promoting StudentEngagement, Vol. 1, eds R. L. Miller,E. Amsel, B. M. Kowalewski, B.C. Beins, K. D. Keith, and B. F.Peden, 286–291. Available onlineat: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/pse2011/index.php

Ceci, S. J., and Bronfenbrenner, U.(1985). Don’t forget to take the cup-cakes out of the oven”: prospectivememory, strategic time-monitoring,and context. Child Dev. 56, 152–164.doi: 10.2307/1130182

Cheng, M.-T., and Annetta, L.(2012). Students’ learningoutcomes and learning experi-ences through playing a SeriousEducational Game. J. Biol. Educ. 46,203–213. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2012.688848

Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual frameworkfor differentiating learningactivities. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1,73–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x

Chi, M. T. H. (1978). “Knowledgestructures and memory develop-ment,” in Children’s Thinking: WhatDevelops? ed R. Siegler (Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum), 73–96.

Cimpian, A. (2010). The impactof generic language aboutability on children’s achieve-ment motivation. Dev. Psychol.46, 1333–1340. doi: 10.1037/a0019665

Cimpian, A., Arce, H. M. C.,Markman, E. M., and Dweck,

C. S. (2007). Subtle linguisticcues affect children’s motivation.Psychol. Sci. 18, 314–316. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01896.x

Clark, A., and Chalmers, D. (1998). Theextended mind. Analysis 58, 7–19.doi: 10.1093/analys/58.1.7

Clarke, A. C. (1962). Profiles of theFuture. London: Gollancz.

Cordova, D. I., and Lepper, M. R.(1996). Intrinsic motivation and theprocess of learning: beneficial effectsof contextualization, personaliza-tion, and choice. J. Educ. Psychol.88, 715–730. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715

Corpus, J. H., Ogle, C. M., and Love-Geiger, K. E. (2006). The effectsof social-comparison versus masterypraise on children’s intrinsic moti-vation. Motiv. Emot. 30, 333–343.doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9039-4

Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M.,and Hickey, R. (2008). Toward anunderstanding of flow in videogames. Comp. Entertain. 6, 1–27.doi: 10.1145/1371216.1371223

Cox, C. A., and Carpenter, J. R. (1989).Improving attitudes toward teach-ing science and reducing scienceanxiety through increasing confi-dence in science ability in inser-vice elementary school teachers.J. Elem. Sci. Educ. 1, 14–34. doi:10.1007/BF03173020

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Thedomain of creativity. Theor. Creat.4, 61–91.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., andCsikszentmihalyi, I. (1975).Beyond Boredom and Anxiety:The Experience of Play in Workand Games. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Deater-Deckard, K., Chang, M., andEvans, M. E. (2013). Engagementstates and learning from educationalgames. New. Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev.139, 21–30. doi: 10.1002/cad.20028

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., and Ryan,R. M. (1999). A meta-analyticreview of experiments examiningthe effects of extrinsic rewards onintrinsic motivation. Psychol. Bull.

www.frontiersin.org September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 13

Morris et al. Gaming science

125, 627. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.125.6.627

Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J.,Nelson, B., and Bowman, C. (2005).“Students’ motivation and learningof science in a multi-user virtualenvironment,” in Paper presented atthe American Educational ResearchAssociation Conference (Montreal,QC).

de Manzano, Ö., Theorell, T., Harmat,L., and Ullén, F. (2010). The psy-chophysiology of flow during pianoplaying. Emotion 10, 301. doi:10.1037/a0018432

Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A.,Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., andEricsson, K. A. (2011). Deliberatepractice spells success why grit-tier competitors triumph atthe national spelling bee. Soc.Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2, 174–181. doi:10.1177/1948550610385872

Dunbar, K., and Klahr, D. (1989).“Developmental differences inscientific discovery processes,” inComplex Information Processing:The Impact Of Herbert A. Simon, edsD. Klahr and K. Kotovsky (Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates),109–143.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The NewPsychology of Success. RandomHouse. New York, NY: BallantineBooks.

Dye, M. W. G., Green, C. S., andBavelier, D. (2009). Increasingspeed of processing withaction video games. Curr. Dir.Psychol. Sci. 18, 321–326. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01660.x

Evans, M. A., and Biedler, J.(2011). Playing, designing, anddeveloping video games forinformal science learning: mis-sion: evolution as a workingexample. Int. J. Learn. Media3. doi: 10.1162/IJLM_a_00083.Available online at:http://ijlm.net/node/13209

Federation of American Scientists.(2006). Summit on EducationalGames. Washington, DC:Federation of American Scientists

Feng, J., Spence, I., and Pratt,J. (2007). Playing an actionvideogame reduces gender dif-ferences in spatial cognition.Psychol. Sci. 18, 850–855. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01990.x

Galas, C., and Ketelhut, D. J. (2006).River city, the MUVE. Learn. Lead.Technol. 33, 31–32.

Garcia-Mila, M., and Andersen, C.(2007). Developmental changein notetaking during scientificinquiry. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 29,1035–1058. doi: 10.1080/09500690600931103

Gauvain, M. (2001). The Social Contextof Cognitive Development. New York,NY: The Guilford Press.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video GamesHave to Teach Us About Learningand Literacy. New York, NY:Palgrave/Macmillan.

Gee, J. P. (2005a). Pleasure, learn-ing, videogames, and life: theprojective stance. E-Learning 2,211–223. doi: 10.2304/elea.2005.2.3.2

Gee, J. P. (2005b). What would a stateof the art instructional video gamelook like. Innovate 1–6.

Gee, J. P. (2008a). “Being a lion andbeing a soldier: learning and games,”in Handbook of Research on NewLiteracies, eds J. Coiro, M. Knobel,C. Lankshear, and D. J. Leu (NewYork, NY: Routledge), 1023–1036.

Gee, J. P. (2008b). Videogames and embodiment.Games Cult. 3, 253–263. doi:10.1177/1555412008317309

Gee, J. P. (2009). Games, learning, and21st century survival skills. J. VirtualWorlds Res. 1–9.

Gleason, M. E., and Schauble, L.(2000). Parents’ assistance of theirchildren’s scientific reasoning.Cogn. Instr. 17, 343–378. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_1

Graesser, A. C., and Person, N.K. (1994). Question ask-ing during tutoring. Am.Educ. Res. J. 31, 104–137. doi:10.3102/00028312031001104

Green, C. S., and Bavelier, D. (2007).Action video game experiencealters the spatial resolution ofvision. Psychol. Sci. 18, 88–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01853.x

Green, C. S., Pouget, A., and Bavelier,D. (2010). Improved probabilis-tic inference, as a general learn-ing mechanism with action videogames. Curr. Biol. 20, 1573–15792.doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.07.040

Greenfield, P. M. (1994). Videogames as cultural artifacts.J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 15,3–12. doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(94)90003-5

Greenfield, P. M., Camaioni, L.,Ercolani, P., Weiss, L., Lauber,B. A., and Perucchini, P. (1994).Cognitive socialization by computergames in two cultures: inductivediscovery or mastery of an iconiccode. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 15,59–85. doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(94)90006-X

Habgood, M. P. J., and Ainsworth, S. E.(2011). Motivating children to learneffectively: exploring the value ofintrinsic integration in educationalgames. J. Learn. Sci. 20, 169–206.doi: 10.1080/10508406.2010.508029

Halpern, D. F., Millis, K., Graesser,A., Butler, H., Forsyth, C., andCai, Z. (2012). Operation ARA:a computerized learning gamethat teaches critical thinkingand scientific reasoning. Think.Skills Creat. 7, 93–100. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.006

Hawes, Z., McManus, J., Naqvi, S.,Martinussen, R., and Pelletier, J.(2013). “Improving children’s abil-ity to self-regulate through com-puterized cognitive training: a ran-domized controlled study,” in PosterPresentation, Biennial Meeting ofthe Society for Research in ChildDevelopment (Seattle, WA).

Henderlong, J., and Lepper, M. R.(2002). The effects of praise onchildren’s intrinsic motivation: areview and synthesis. Psychol. Bull.128, 774. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.774

Jirout, J., and Klahr, D. (2012).Children’s scientific curiosity:in search of an operationaldefinition of an elusive con-cept. Dev. Rev. 32, 125–160. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.04.002

Kamins, M. L., and Dweck, C. S.(1999). Person versus process praiseand criticism: implications forcontingent self-worth and coping.Dev. Psychol. 35, 835–847. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.835

Kanari, Z., and Millar, R. (2004).Reasoning from data: howstudents collect and interpretdata in science investiga-tions. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41,748–769. doi: 10.1002/tea.20020

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamificationof Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods and Strategiesfor Training and Education. SanFrancisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Ke, F. (2009). “A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learn-ing tools,” in Handbook of Researchon Effective Electronic Gaming inEducation, ed R. E. Ferdig (NewYork, NY: IGI Global), 1–32.

Klahr, D. (1996). “Scientific discov-ery processes in children, adults,and machines,” in Mind Matters:Contributions to Cognitive andComputer Science in Honor ofAllen Newell, eds D. Steier and T.Mitchell (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum),325–355.

Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring Science:The Cognition and Developmentof Discovery Processes. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Klahr, D. (2012). Inquiry ScienceRocks: Or Does It? Back Page,APS News. Available online at:http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201212/backpage.cfm

Klahr, D., and Chen, Z. (2011). Findingone’s place in transfer space.Child Dev. Pers. 5, 196–204. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00171.x

Klahr, D., and Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual-space search during scientific rea-soning. Cogn. Sci. 12, 1–48. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1

Klimmt, C., and Hartmann, T. (2006).“Effectance, self-efficacy, and themotivation to play video games,”in Playing Video Games: Motives,Responses, and Consequences, eds P.Vorderer and J. Bryant (Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates),133–145.

Klopfer, E., and Squire, K. (2008).Environmental detectives—thedevelopment of an augmentedreality platform for environmen-tal simulations. Educ. Technol.Res. Dev. 56, 203–228. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6

Klopfer, E., and Squire, K., Jenkins, H.(2004). “Environmental detectives:PDAs as a window into a virtualsimulated world,” in Didaktik derNotebook-Universität, M. Kerres,M. Kalz, J. Stratmann, C. de Witt(Münster: Waxmann Verlag),259–274.

Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory andEvidence: The Development OfScientific Reasoning. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adultsas intuitive scientists. Psychol. Rev.96, 674–689. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.674

Kuhn, D. (2005). Education forThinking. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Kuhn, D. (2011). “What is scien-tific thinking and how doesit develop?” in Handbook ofChildhood Cognitive Development,2nd Edn., ed U. Goswami(Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell),497–523.

Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., andKaplan, D. (2000). The develop-ment of cognitive skills to sup-port inquiry learning. Cogn. Instr.18, 495–523. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_3

Kuhn, D., and Franklin, S. (2006).“The second decade: what devel-ops (and how)?” in, Handbook ofchild psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition,perception, and language, 6th Edn.,Series eds W. Damon and R. Lerner,Vol. eds D. Kuhn and R. Siegler(Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 953–993.

Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating com-munities: sociocultural perspectiveson science education. J. Res. Sci.Teach. 38, 296–316. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 14

Morris et al. Gaming science

Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psy-chology of curiosity: a review andreinterpretation. Psychol. Bull. 116,75–98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75

Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward atheory of intrinsically motivat-ing instruction. Cogn. Sci. 4,333–369. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2

Malone, T. W., and Lepper, M. R.(1987). “Making learning fun: ataxonomy of intrinsic motivationsfor learning,” in Aptitude, Learning,and Instruction, III: Conative andAffective Process Analysis, eds R. E.Snow and M. J. Farr (Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates),223–253.

Mareschal, D., Johnson, M. H., Sirois,S., Spratling, M., Thomas, M.,and Westermann, G. (2007).Neuroconstructivism, Vol. I: How theBrain Constructs Cognition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198529934.001.0001

Mayo, M. J. (2009). Video games:a route to large-scale STEM edu-cation. Science 323, 79–82. doi:10.1126/science.1166900

McClarty, K. L., Orr, A., Frey, P. M.,Dolan, R. P., Vassilev, V., andMcVay, A. (2012). A LiteratureReview of Gaming in Education.Pearson. Available online at: http://formative.pearsonassessments.com/hai / Images / tmrs / Lit _ Review_of_Gaming_in_Education.pdf

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken:Why Games Make Us Better and HowThey Can Change the World. NewYork, NY: Penguin.

Morris, B. J., Croker, S., Masnick, A.,and Zimmerman, C. (2012). “Theemergence of scientific reasoning,”in Trends in Cognitive Development,H. Kloos, B. J.Morris, and J. Amaral(Rijeka: InTech), 61–82.

Nakamura, J., and Csikszentmihalyi,M. (2002). “The concept of flow,”in Handbook of Positive Psychology,eds C. R. Snyder and S. J. Lopez(Oxford: Oxford University Press),89–105.

National Research Council. (2009).Linking Evidence and PromisingPractices in Science, Technology,Engineering, and Mathematics(STEM) Undergraduate Education.Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press.

National Research Council. (2010).Exploring the Intersection of ScienceEducation and 21st Century Skills:A Workshop Summary. Washington,DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2011).Learning Science through

Computer Games and Simulations.Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press.

National Research Council. (2012).A Framework for K-12 ScienceEducation: Practices, CrosscuttingConcepts, and Core Ideas.Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press.

Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke,J., Dieterle, E., Dede, C., andErlandson, B. (2007). “Robustdesign strategies for scaling edu-cational innovations: the RiverCity MUVE case study,” in TheEducational Design and Use ],eds B. E. Shelton and D. A.Wiley (Rotterdam: Sense Press),209–231.

Newcombe, N. S. (2010). Picture this:increasing math and science learn-ing by improving spatial thinking.Am. Educ. 2010, 29–43.

Newcombe, N. S., and Stieff, M.(2012). Six myths about spatialthinking. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34,955–971. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.588728

O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking sci-ence education: beyond Piagetianconstructivism toward a sociocul-tural model of teaching and learn-ing. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 29, 791–820.doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290805

O’Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., and Baker,E. L. (2005). Classification oflearning outcomes: evidencefrom the computer games litera-ture. Curric. J. 16, 455–474. doi:10.1080/09585170500384529

Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digitalgame-based learning in highschool computer science edu-cation: impact on educationaleffectiveness and student motiva-tion. Comput. Educ. 52, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004

Powers, W. T. (1973). Feedback:beyond behaviorism stimulus-response laws are wholly predictablewithin a control-system model ofbehavioral organization. Science179, 351–356. doi: 10.1126/science.179.4071.351

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

Prensky, M. (2011). “Comments onresearch comparing games toother instructional methods,” InComputer Games and Instruction,eds S. Tobias and J. D. Fletcher(Charlotte, NC: Information AgePublishing), 251–278.

Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., andRyan, R. M. (2010). A motivationalmodel of video game engagement.Rev. Gen.Psychol. 14, 154. doi:10.1037/a0019440

Ravaja, N., Saari, T., Laarni, J., Kallinen,K., Salminen, M., Holopainen, J.,and Järvinen, A. (2005). “The psy-chophysiology of video gaming:phasic emotional responses to gameevents,” in online Proceedings ofDiGRA 2005.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship inThinking: Cognitive Developmentin Social Context. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille,P., Marianov, V., Correa, M.,Flores, P., et al. (2003). BeyondNintendo: design and assessmentof educational video games forfirst and second grade students.Comput. Educ. 40, 71–94. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00099-4

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000).Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:classic definitions and new direc-tions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25,54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., andPrzybylski, A. (2006). The moti-vational pull of video games:a self-determination theoryapproach. Motiv. Emot. 30, 344–360.doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8

Schneider, W., Korkel, J., and Weinert,F. E. (1989). Domain-specificknowledge and memory perfor-mance: a comparison of high-and low-aptitude children.J. Educ. Psychol. 81, 306–312.doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.306

Schunn, C. D., and Anderson, J. R.(1999). The generality/specificityof expertise in scientific reason-ing. Cogn. Sci. 23, 337–370. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2303_3

Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo,M. A., and Chin, D. B. (2011).Practicing versus inventing withcontrasting cases: the effects oftelling first on learning and trans-fer. J. Educ. Psychol. 103, 759. doi:10.1037/a0025140

Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Epistemic games.Innovate 1, 1–6.

Shaffer, D. W., Chesler, N. C.,Arastoopour, G., and D’Angelo,C. (2011). “Nephrotex: teachingfirst year students how to think likeengineers,” in Poster presented at theCourse, Curriculum, and LaboratoryImprovement (CCLI) PI Conference(Washington, DC).

Shtulman, A. (2009). The devel-opment of possibility judgmentwithin and across domains.Cogn. Dev. 24, 293–309. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.12.006

Shtulman, A., and Carey, S. (2007).Improbable or impossible?How children reason aboutthe possibility of extraordi-nary events. Child Dev. 78,

1015–1032. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01047.x

Siegler, R. S., and Liebert, R. M.(1975). Acquisition of formal scien-tific reasoning by 10- and 13-year-olds: designing a factorial exper-iment. Dev. Psychol. 11, 401–402.doi: 10.1037/h0076579

Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik,J., and Chambers, J. C. (2000).Constructing extended inquiryprojects: curriculum materialsfor science education reform.Educ. Psychol. 35, 165–178. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3503_3

Spivey, M. J. (2007). The Continuityof Mind. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Squire, K. (2008). “Video gamesliteracy: a literacy of expertise,”in Handbook of Research on NewLiteracies, eds J. Coiro, M. Knobel,C. Lankshear, and D. J. Leu(Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum),639–673.

Squire, K., Barnett, M., Grant, J. M.,and Higginbotham, T. (2004).“Electromagnetism Supercharged!Learning physics with digital simu-lation games,” in Proceedings of theSixth International Conference of theLearning Sciences, eds Y. B. Kafai,W. A. Sandoval, and N. Enyedy(Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum),513–520.

Squire, K. D., and Jan, M. (2007).Mad City Mystery: developingscientific argumentation skills witha place-based augmented realitygame on handheld computers.J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 16, 5–29. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z

Squire, K., and Jenkins, H. (2003).Harnessing the power of games ineducation. Insight 3, 5–33.

Son, L. K., and Simon, D. A.(2012). Distributed learning:data, metacognition, and edu-cational implications. Educ.Psychol. Rev. 24, 379–399. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9206-y

Steinkuehler, C., and Chmiel, M.(2006). “Fostering scientifichabits of mind in the contextof online play,” in Proceedings ofthe International conference of thelearning sciences, eds S. A. Barab,K. E. Hay, N. B. Songer, and D. T.Hickey (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbuam),723–729.

Steinkuehler, C., and Duncan, S.(2008). Scientific habits of mind invirtual worlds. J. Sci. Educ. Technol.17, 1573–1839.

Suits, B. (1978). The Grasshopper:Games, Life, and Utopia. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.

Svarovsky, G. N. (2009). Unpackingthe Digital Zoo: An analysis of

www.frontiersin.org September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 15

Morris et al. Gaming science

the Learning Processes Within anEngineering Epistemic Game. Ph.D.thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding sci-ence in the elementary school.Sci. Educ. 74, 421–431. doi:10.1002/sce.3730740403

Tobias, S., and Fletcher, J. D. (eds.).(2011). Computer games andinstruction. Charlotte, NC:Information Age Publishing.

Trafton, J. G., and Trickett, S.B. (2001). Note-taking forself-explanation and prob-lem solving. Hum. Comput.Interact. 16, 1–38. doi: 10.1207/S15327051HCI1601_1

Udo, M. K., Ramsey, G. P., andMallow, J. V. (2004). Scienceanxiety and gender in studentstaking general education sciencecourses. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13,435–446. doi: 10.1007/s10956-004-1465-z

Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton,E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R.,Warren, C., et al. (2013). The mal-leability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. Psychol.Bull. 139, 352–402. doi: 10.1037/a0028446

Vuilleumier, P. (2005). How brainsbeware: neural mechanismsof emotional attention. TrendsCogn. sciences 9, 585. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.011

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought andLanguage, (rev., ed.). Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Weiner, B. (1995). “Attribution the-ory in organizational behavior:a relationship of mutual bene-fit,” in Attribution Theory: AnOrganizational Perspective, ed M.Martinko (Delray Beach, FL: St.Lucie Press), 3–6.

Wilbert, J., Grosche, M., and Gerdes,H. (2010). Effects of evaluative feed-back on rate of learning and taskmotivation: an analogue experi-ment. Learn. Disabil. Contemp. J. 8,43–52.

Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., andRoss, G. (1976). The role oftutoring in problem solving.J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 17,89–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A.B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai,B., et al. (2012). Our princessis in another castle: a reviewof trends in serious gaming foreducation. Rev. Educ. Res. 82,61–89. doi: 10.3102/0034654312436980

Zentall, S. R., and Morris, B. J. (2010).“Good Job, You’re So Smart”: theeffects of inconsistency of praisetype on young children’s motiva-tion. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 107,155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.04.015

Zentall, S. R., and Morris, B. J.(2012). A critical eye: praisedirected toward traits increaseschildren’s eye fixations on errorand decreases motivation. Psychon.Bull. Rev. 19, 1073–1077. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0294-y

Zimmerman, C. (2000). The devel-opment of scientific reasoningskills. Dev. Rev. 20, 99–149. doi:10.1006/drev.1999.0497

Zimmerman, C. (2007). The devel-opment of scientific thinkingskills in elementary and middleschool. Dev. Rev. 27, 172–223. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001

Zimmerman, C. (in press).“Developing scientific thinkingin the context of videogames:where to next?” in Learning byPlaying: Frontiers of Video Gamingin Education, ed F. Blumberg (NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press).

Zimmerman, C., and Croker, S. (2013).“Learning science through inquiry,”in Handbook of the Psychology ofScience, eds G. Feist and M. Gorman(New York, NY: Springer), 49–70.

Zimmerman, C., and Croker, S.(in press). A prospective cogni-tion analysis of scientific thinkingand the implications for teachingand learning science. J. cogn. edu.psychol.

Zohar, A., and Peled, B. (2008).The effects of explicit teachingof metastrategic knowledge on

low- and high-achieving students.Learn. Instr. 18, 337–353. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.001

Conflict of Interest Statement: Theauthors declare that the researchwas conducted in the absence of anycommercial or financial relationshipsthat could be construed as a potentialconflict of interest.

Received: 01 May 2013; accepted: 21August 2013; published online: 09September 2013.Citation: Morris BJ, Croker S,Zimmerman C, Gill D and RomigC (2013) Gaming science: the“Gamification” of scientific think-ing. Front. Psychol. 4:607. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00607This article was submitted toDevelopmental Psychology, a sectionof the journal Frontiers in Psychology.Copyright © 2013 Morris, Croker,Zimmerman, Gill and Romig. This isan open-access article distributed underthe terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution License (CC BY). The use,distribution or reproduction in otherforums is permitted, provided the orig-inal author(s) or licensor are cred-ited and that the original publicationin this journal is cited, in accordancewith accepted academic practice. No use,distribution or reproduction is permit-ted which does not comply with theseterms.

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology September 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 607 | 16